Archives|Sale of Property for Unpaid Taxes--Allowances Under Sec. 308 of the Code.; SUPREME COURT--CHAMBERS. A Question of Alleged Fraud Settled. Justice Peckham's Opinion in the Harlem Railroad Injunction Matter. The Game Law of 1862--Birds Illegally Killed in Illinois may not be Exposed for Sale out of Season in this State. The Affairs of the Tibbetts Family--Attorney and Client. Another Riot Case--Verdict against the City. SUPERIOR COURT--TRIAL TERM. Court Calendar--This Day.

Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Sale of Property for Unpaid Taxes--Allowances Under Sec. 308 of the Code.; SUPREME COURT--CHAMBERS. A Question of Alleged Fraud Settled. Justice Peckham's Opinion in the Harlem Railroad Injunction Matter. The Game Law of 1862--Birds Illegally Killed in Illinois may not be Exposed for Sale out of Season in this State. The Affairs of the Tibbetts Family--Attorney and Client. Another Riot Case--Verdict against the City. SUPERIOR COURT--TRIAL TERM. Court Calendar--This Day.

Sarah C. Hatch et al. vs. Robert S. Livingston. -- This was a motion for a percentage or allowance which the County Clerk refused to insert in the bill of costs.

The plaintiffs set aside a lease from the City to the defendant of a valuable house and lot in Eleventh-street for one hundred years, which house was purchased at a sale for unpaid taxes, for a small sum; and they now claimed the allowance or percentage usually made in this class of cases, contending that the allowance was provided for by section 308 of the Code of Procedure.

The defendants argued that there was no value or specified sum on which the per centage could be calculated, and that the suit was one in the nature of removing a cloud from the title, rather than strictly under the statute specified.

William D. Little vs. J.D. Sherwood, David L. Allen, Jacob B. Herrick, Jacob H. Herrick and W.S. Hicks. -- This was an action brought to recover the value of 150 barrels of flour alleged to have been purchased by the defendant, Hicks, and by him sold to defendant, Herrick, after due notice of the fraud had been given them.

The issues as settled by the Court and presented to the jury were: first, whether defendant, Hicks, purchased the flour and received the order in the pleadings mentioned fraudulently and with intent of not paying for the same; and, second, whether the defendants, Herrick, became the purchaser of or advanced any value on account of the said flour in good faith and without notice of the alleged fraud of said Hicks.

The testimony on these two points was conflicting, but the jury, after being out some time, found a verdict for the plaintiff, answering both questions in the affirmative.

Henry Nicol for plaintiff; J.H. Balister for defendants.

SUPREME COURT -- CHAMBERS.

Before Justice Peckham.

The People, &c., vs. The New-York and Harlem Railroad Company. -- The decision dissolving the injunction in this case has already been announced in the TIMES. The following is the opinion of the court:

PECKHAM, J. -- As to the Fourth-avenue, there is no allegation in the complaint of any kind, that the defendant is engaged in laying any such track, or that it intends or threatens to do so, or that it is taking, or has taken, any steps to that end. No occasion or reason for issuing an injunction, therefore, is shown as to the Fourth-avenue. The right to lay such track is not involved in this motion, and I shall not examine or discuss it. As to the laying of a track through Thirty-fourth-street, the only question presented, in my judgment, is whether the act of 1860 repealed the permission granted to the defendants by the act of 1849 to construct such a track. The act of 1860 is as follows:

It shall not be lawful hereafter to lay, construct or operate any railroad in upon or along any or either of the streets or avenues of the City of New-York, wherever such railroad may commence or end, except under the authority and subject to the regulations and restrictions which the Legislature may hereafter grant and provide. This section shall not be deemed to affect the operation, as far as laid, of any railroad now constructed and duly authorized, nor shall it be held to impair in any manner any valid grant for or relating to any railroad in said City existing on the 1st day of January, 1860.

The third section of the act of 1849 authorizes the defendants to construct the branch from their road to the Hudson River -- authorized in their original charter -- from any point on their road north of Twenty-seventh-street to any point upon the Hudson River which may be designated and permitted by the Common Council of the City of New-York, and also to construct a like branch from their road to the East River, at such point as may be designated and permitted by the Corporation of the City of New-York.

It is often stated in the books that repeals of statutes are not favored in law, but that if it is possible, both statues should stand. I think the amendments to the defendant's charter, by the act of 1849 and by the act of 1860, may stand together. Though the power to repeal may have been vested in the Legislature, the company might safely believe that it would never be wantonly exercised, to serve no public purpose; to punish no corporate wrongs. The Corporation of the City of New-York could only designate the point on the East River where the branch road should terminate. The preliminary injunction must be dissolved, and the motion for its continuance denied, with $10 costs.

Wm. Fullerton for owners, on Fourth-avenue; John Cochrane, Attorney-General, for people; Chas. A. Rapallo for defendants.

John J. Lawrence vs. John A. Farrington. -- This was an appeal from a judgment of $120 obtained agrinst the defendant, a market man on Broadway, near Twentieth-street, by the plaintiff, who is a member of the New-York Sportman's Club, for exposing for sale two dozen quails contrary to law.

The grounds of appeal were that the law for the preservation of game, passed April 23, 1862, was unconstitutional, as it creates a penalty for the possession of merchandise; also that it being shown that the quails exposed for sale were killed in Illinois, the penalty should not apply in this State.

The court held the law to be constitutional, it being deemed necessary for the preservation of birds to make the possession of them, as well as the killing, illegal, and that the defendant must show that the birds were killed in Illinois at a time when it was not illegal to kill them by the laws of that State.

The judgment was affirmed accordingly.

H. Richardson for appellant; Chas. E. Whitehead for respondent.

SUPREME COURT -- CHAMBERS.

Before Justice Barnard.

Phoebe Jane Tibbetts vs. Horatio N. Trombly -- This was a motion to compel the attorney for the plaintiff in the above-entitled action to disclose his authority for bringing the suit.

It was alleged by defendant's counsel that the plaintiff is the sister of the defendant, and the wife of Mr. Luther C. Tibbetts, who recently made himself notorious by sundry operations at the Produce Exchange; that the action was brought to recover a sum of money, the separate property of the plaintiff, placed by her in her brother's hands for investment and safe keeping; that this suit was commenced without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff, and the complaint was verified by the affidavits of Luther C. Tibbetts, the husband of plaintiff.

Defendant's counsel stated that defendant was perfectly willing to pay over this money to Mrs. Tibbetts at any moment, but that as the suit was without her desire, consent or wishes, they declined to pay it to Luther C. Tibbetts or his attorney. They also produced letters from Mr. Tibbetts to Mrs. Tibbetts, and from plaintiff to her brother, the defendant, showing that she was taken by surprise at the commencement of the action, and that Mr. Tibbetts had threatened to separate from her if she did not consent to leave matters in his hands.

Plaintiff's counsel contended that, although Mrs. Tibbetts, the plaintiff, might have known nothing of the action when it was commenced, yet since that time she had ratified her husband's action in the matter, and now left it in his hands. Mrs. Tibbetts, he said, was perfectly responsible, and so was her attorney. Counsel for defendant contended that Mrs. Tibbetts was under duress, and that the consent had been extorted from her by threats. He said her letters proved this, and they were really too heartrending to be read. His Honor said that however hard the case might seem, he had no power in the matter, as it seemed that the wife had ratified the action of the husband. The motion must be denied, with ten dollars costs.

John Anderson vs. The Mayor, Aldermen, &c. of the City of New-York. -- This was a riot case. Plaintiff, the proprietor of a sailor boarding-house in Rector-street, claimed $7,000 damages for injuries to his premises caused by the action of the mob in July last. The usual motion to dismiss the complaint was made and denied, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, assessing his damages at $207 75.

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback, error reports,
and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

A version of this archives appears in print on May 19, 1864, on Page 3 of the New York edition with the headline: Sale of Property for Unpaid Taxes--Allowances Under Sec. 308 of the Code.; SUPREME COURT--CHAMBERS. A Question of Alleged Fraud Settled. Justice Peckham's Opinion in the Harlem Railroad Injunction Matter. The Game Law of 1862--Birds Illegally Killed in Illinois may not be Exposed for Sale out of Season in this State. The Affairs of the Tibbetts Family--Attorney and Client. Another Riot Case--Verdict against the City. SUPERIOR COURT--TRIAL TERM. Court Calendar--This Day. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe